I once in a while grab one of my D bodies, be it the D800 or the D850, I recently got the Sigma 24-35 whose focus on the D body is hit and totally miss but which seems very reliable the few times I used it adapted on a Z body, excited by the results and not having a native F 50mm (got the 58 and the 60 in F mount) I was wondering if to try what is not an old lens like the 50Art to look for on the used market or forget it and just use the fantastic 50S f1.8 on a Z body and just be happy with what I have.
Anybody direct comparison of the 50S vs the old 50Art?
I had the 50 Art when I had my D850. It was a fine combo. It’s a heavy lens but very sharp. I personally am happy with the 50 1.8s and would not “add” this lens for mirrorless but that is my preference. I still have many f lenses and a D5 but just don’t use it enough to add more f mount lenses.
I understand and agree, I take the 24-35 with me on both the D850 or adapted on a Z6II to figure if I like the range, especially at 35mm as that's a focal length I never seemed to understand and appreciate as I am more inclined towards longer focal lengths to give me a more intimate perspective of my subject when it's about portraits.
Couple days ago I tried some kind of portrait wide open at f2 and there is a good separation due to blur and distant background, still find that 35 is maybe too wide as to get the desired perspective I have to get closer than usual and the risk of distortions becomes real and this is why I been looking for a decent 50mm on F mount since forever (and I own an old 50/2 MF along with the magnificent 58G and 60G macro which), got tempted to try the Sigma 40 as a middle ground between 35 and 50 to have a different field of view but these lenses are really really big and even used they still cost quite a bit so before running any self financed test I am eager to know about real users feedback.
I sold mine because it didn’t make sense to keep for Z. Got $300 cash for it and spent an additional $180 to get the 50 1.8S and I’m very happy with it. Crazy sharp, just as the Art was, but doesn’t miss focus, which the Art did often enough to be aggravating.
Focus accuracy is what I am afraid of with Sigma, so far the 24-35 sometimes totally misses it on D-SLR and sometimes also on a ML body even tho once in a very while.
I agree with you that the 1.8S on Z is amazing, super sharp, tack sharp focus and reasonably priced if patient to wait for some discount, I miss a really good AF 50 on D-SLR, that is why I ask about the Sigma.
jlafferty wrote:
I sold mine because it didn’t make sense to keep for Z. Got $300 cash for it and spent an additional $180 to get the 50 1.8S and I’m very happy with it. Crazy sharp, just as the Art was, but doesn’t miss focus, which the Art did often enough to be aggravating.
Yeah the Sigma 50mm art was the best option at the time for F-mount, but I always found that on top of focus inconsistency, it had a noticeable baked in higher contrast look and vignette that was popular at the time (that crushed black look). The 50 1.8 S is still my favorite for Z mount after owning and selling on the 50 1.2, which was just too huge.
I got the original Z6 on preorder and it was a few months before the 50mm f/1.8S arrived—so I used the 50Art and other lenses with the FTZ for a while. My impression then was that the two lenses performed shockingly similar, great sharpness and contrast, accurate focus (improved from DSLR), and good flare resistance. The difference in aperture, for me, was not enough to justify the bulk and weight. Results may vary on different bodies as the weight would play differently on a Z8/9
I don't plan on using a 50 on the Z but rather on the D8xx where there is no decent native 50/1.4 (nah, the f1.8 might be a great bargain but far from being a nice lens from what I used to see), I own the 58G and 60G but lack a 50 but maybe it just hasn't has to be...
Yep, I am actually trying to figure how 35mm suits me with the recently acquired 24-35, the AF is on and off on a reflex body, better on a mirrorless one, the out of focus blur at 35mm f2 with a distant background isn't bad and the lens is very sharp across the frame, vignetting is ugly but can be fixed, distortions are there but, again, either fix or leave if nothing that makes it obvious, all in all not a bad lens even tho huge but it leads me to think that the 40 could do better portrait wise, which is what I like to do, and should give a better blur.
I saw some review about it but prices are still sky high here in Italy, in the 700+ range
